annulments

[otm]

stanley123:

But I argue that information is available today as it has never been available before. Hardly anyone can claim invincible ignorance about the Church’s teachings today. But above all what is so difficult about understanding words like, “For better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health until death do us part”? "

As a matter of fact, the writer is either living a very isolated existence, and is not in contact with any of the 60%+ of Catholics who have quit (effectively) the Church, and has simply not talked with many at all of those who are in their 30s, 40, and 50s, or she has chosen to treat the ones she has met as abberations.

It is shocking the number of Catholics, even among those going to Mass on a regualr basis, who really have not been taught much at all about their faith, and in particular have not been taught much at all doctrinally.

I have no disagreement with her that information is more widely available now than ever before. What she presumes is that anyone is reading it. Some are, but all too often that is “preaching to the choir”.

Read any number of threads in this forum and you will find an overwhelming number who complain that they don’t hear much from the pulpit (ok, the ambo). what she aan’t seem to grasp is that by the time an approximately 28 year old (that is using the national averages of first marriages) reaches the altar, they haven’t been catechized by their parents (they didn’t learn it so they can’t teach it); they weren’t catechized by the pastor at Mass (and it remains questionable whether that is the proper forum)l and they didn’t get it at their local Catholic high school (only a select minority, and much of what they had there stank), and they sure didn’t get it in CCD or it’s equivalent.

So what do they think of “For better or for worse…”? it is a quaint formulaic phrase that, like, you gotta say, dontcha know, like, everyone says that cuz that’s what they do in the movies. It has been rendered a cute phrase that everyone says, and obviously they don’t mean; i mean, look at Tom Cruise, and the Kennedys, and Madonna, and like, everyone!

She seems to have no clue whatsoever of common society and what goes on day in and day out in the media. God bless her for her naievety, but she simply has no clue.

 

[otm]

seagal:

I’ve been through the annulment process so I know that the validity of a marriage is determined by how the 2 people actually entered the marriage. However, this question has started me thinking in a different direction.

What about people whose marriage could be annuled but they never know because they’re still married and don’t have any plans to divorce? If the marriage wasn’t a sacrament at the beginning, what does that mean to the people who are still married?

the Church treats all marriages as valid unless and until there has been a finding of nullity. So you operate on the same basis. God isn’t going to “getcha” on the grounds of simulating a sacrament, as you had no intent of doing so.

In other words, it is a non issue.

 

[otm]

Catholic2003:

Perhaps I am being too harsh on Mrs. Temaat. But I do think she has gone well beyond “concern” in her article, to the point of having judged the American tribunals and already found them guilty. For example, statements as:

again, the basis of her statement is the inability to separate out the forest and the trees.

She gets an item of evidence and sees a tree; she gets the next one and sees a tree, and she keeps going up to each item of evidence and saying “See, it is just a tree”.

She shows no ability to stand back and see the forest. She would last about two weeks in law school before she would crash and burn.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

the Church treats all marriages as valid unless and until there has been a finding of nullity. So you operate on the same basis. God isn’t going to “getcha” on the grounds of simulating a sacrament, as you had no intent of doing so.

In other words, it is a non issue.

You are avoiding the question here. Who out there is married Sacramentally? It looks like the great majority of Catholics are really not married, but are living together without the benefit of the Sacrament. This is unlike in the Eastern Orthodox Church where the priest marries the couple and the rate of annulments on the basis of defective consent is practically nil
On the one hand we are told that the RCC is indefectible. But on the other hand, no one knows who is Sacramentally married in the Church as it appears that after ten or fifteen years of marriage, one of the partners can become unfaithful and that is evidence that he or she was not of the correct disposition ten years ago for the validity of the Sacrament. Is there any marriage that cannot be annulled? Someone asked me for an example of a marriage that should not have been annulled and I gave it. Now I ask people here, is there any marriage that cannot be annulled down the line assuming that one of the partners really wants the annulments and works hard to find excuses and reasons why the marriage should be annulled. Is this really the type of situation that is wanted: on the one hand there is a proclamation of the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. While on the other hand, all kinds of loopholes are presented so that in practice just about any marriage can be annulled. It is a bit unseemly for an indefectible Church to have so many defective marriages.

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

This is unlike in the Eastern Orthodox Church where the priest marries the couple and the rate of annulments on the basis of defective consent is practically nil

The rate of annulments and the rate of null marriages are not necessarily the same. The Eastern Orthodox have no tribunal system for evaluating the validity of marriages. It’s kind of a nice system in a way, leaving these issues between penitant and confessor, instead of having a official Church tribunal pour over every private and personal aspect of someone’s marriage before handing down an official decree. The Eastern Orthodox don’t have the same obsession with rules that Catholics seem to have.

stanley123:

Now I ask people here, is there any marriage that cannot be annulled down the line assuming that one of the partners really wants the annulments and works hard to find excuses and reasons why the marriage should be annulled.

Yes, there are marriages that have been turned down for annulments.

One interesting aspect is that the new psychological criteria in the 1983 Code of Canon Law are seen as coming from divine law, in that they have been used to annul marriages performed prior to 1983, with the approval of the Roman Rota.

 

[stanley123]

Catholic2003:

Yes, there are marriages that have been turned down for annulments.
.

And what is the percentage that have been turned down?
According to the
US Catholic magazine of April 1997 on page 7, of all those who apply for an annulment in the St. Paul Minneapolis area, 97% are approved, and declared invalid.
That would be a rejection rate of about 3%.
That seems like a pretty large number of invalid Catholic marriages, 97%, whereas you don’t have this high rate of invalid marriagesin the Orthodox Church, for example. When tested and brought before the tribunal, it is found that 97% of these marriages are invalid. Doesn’t it seem a bit out of order for a Church to have so many defective marriages?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

stanley123:

whereas you don’t have this high rate of invalid marriagesin the Orthodox Church, for example.

Considering they generally don’t look formally at issues of validity until a person is wanting to get married a fourth (?) time, just where/how are you getting your data for the Orthodox for comparison?

 

[Aesq]

stanley123:

And what is the percentage that have been turned down?
According to the
US Catholic magazine of April 1997 on page 7, of all those who apply for an annulment in the St. Paul Minneapolis area, 97% are approved, and declared invalid.
That would be a rejection rate of about 3%.
That seems like a pretty large number of invalid Catholic marriages, 97%, whereas you don’t have this high rate of invalid marriagesin the Orthodox Church, for example. When tested and brought before the tribunal, it is found that 97% of these marriages are invalid. Doesn’t it seem a bit out of order for a Church to have so many defective marriages?

You are doing it again. You say “invalid Catholic marriages.” How many of your quoted percentage are marriages between protestants seeking marriage to a Catholic or of converts who are remarried already. Why do you say Catholic marriages when you do not have any data for that. You are making assumptions because you have an agenda.

 

[manualman]

He’s also stealing attention from my question!

For the record, I have no agenda. I believe the church does not and cannot teach error in principle as regards faith and morals. I have no problem with the teaching that if a couple has a moral defect which prevents them from freely receiving the sacrament, then the marriage is not sacramental.

I still would sure appreciate it if womeone could explain to me why the marriage does not BECOME sacramental, not just natural when/if the defect present on the wedding day is removed/repented of.

Anybody?

 

[Aesq]

manualman:

He’s also stealing attention from my question!

For the record, I have no agenda. I believe the church does not and cannot teach error in principle as regards faith and morals. I have no problem with the teaching that if a couple has a moral defect which prevents them from freely receiving the sacrament, then the marriage is not sacramental.

I still would sure appreciate it if womeone could explain to me why the marriage does not BECOME sacramental, not just natural when/if the defect present on the wedding day is removed/repented of.

Anybody?

I would be happy to try to answer. But what are you saying? Give an example.

The nullities I am familiar with, the defect being corrected is not an issue. The persons were not Catholic at the time of the marriage or divorce. They had no understanding of marriage being a sacrament at the time of the marriage or divorce. There simply was no correction of any defect.

You are going to have to give an example of what you are talking about.

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

Doesn’t it seem a bit out of order for a Church to have so many defective marriages?

Dr. Ed Peters’ article addresses the proper analysis of annulment statistics very well. From the article:

Finally, to the degree that percentages are relevant at all, one might query what percentage of divorced Catholics in America have actually received a declaration of nullity. Speculation on this point is hampered because there do not appear to be firm figures on just how many divorced (albeit perhaps remarried) Catholics there are in America. But reasonable estimates on the percentage of divorced Catholics in America who have received a declaration of nullity range anywhere from 5% to 25%. I’ll go with 10% and ask: is that ratio really too high?

Should we not expect the Church’s teaching on marriage, which is reflected in its canon law, to shed some light on the causes of modern matrimonial collapse? In every ten failed Catholic marriages, should we be surprised that at least one of those marriages failed for the very reasons which Church law itself tried to warn would result in invalidity?

 

[otm]

stanley123:

You are avoiding the question here. Who out there is married Sacramentally?

No, I answered the question; you may not like the answer, but the answer is that the Church holds that everyone is lawfully married (as in Canon law; that is, that everyone has a sacramental marriage).
stanley 123:

It looks like the great majority of Catholics are really not married, but are living together without the benefit of the Sacrament. This is unlike in the Eastern Orthodox Church where the priest marries the couple and the rate of annulments on the basis of defective consent is practically nil.

I have no information on the issue of annulments in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and given that they are not under the jurisdiction of Canon law to begin with, and that the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox believers are in a culture very different from the U.S., it would be all but pointless to make any meaningful comparisons.
stanley 123:

On the one hand we are told that the RCC is indefectible. But on the other hand, no one knows who is Sacramentally married in the Church as it appears that after ten or fifteen years of marriage, one of the partners can become unfaithful and that is evidence that he or she was not of the correct disposition ten years ago for the validity of the Sacrament.

To begin with, you are making the assumption that a lot of annulments arise out of adultery; I know of no statistics anywhere that show that. the evidence is simply anecdotal.

Further, you yourself have stated the ratio of total annulment cases vs. decrees of nullity, so you know that the Church does not always grant one.
stanley 123:

is there any marriage that cannot be annulled down the line assuming that one of the partners really wants the annulments and works hard to find excuses and reasons why the marriage should be annulled.

I have yet to find anyone anywhere who has ever been able to show me even one case that was decided on excuses. Each case has been decided on facts, and those facts have shown to a moral certainty that there was either a failure of form or a failure of intent.
stanley 123:

all kinds of loopholes are presented so that in practice just about any marriage can be annulled. It is a bit unseemly for an indefectible Church to have so many defective marriages.

To begin with, people are not indefectible (including the Pope). Given the number of marriages in the Church each year and the few marriages that are even taken to the tribunal as opposed to the total number of divorces each year, you and I can both agree that there is a problem.

You seem, however, to take the stance that someone said some words, and whether or not they understood it, or meant it, or their spouse understood it, or meant it, life is just tough and that is the end of the question.

Why are so many people divorcing? In very large part because they went into the marriage with that as a possible option. and that is where you an I disagree; you seem to say that if they said the words (as if the words were somehow magic), that the actual saying is sufficient to show intent.

I say that with a world where an estimated 80%+ of couples approaching the altar have already repeatedly engaged in intercourse (why would they not? everyone else is doing that is their answer), and 50%+ have had more than one sexual partner; where people can not give you a straight answer as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, where the media is hypersaturated with sexual activity outside of marriage, and where catechesis has been so abysmally low, that it takes more than formulaic words to show intent to marry as the Church understands marriage.

Are there marriages that are not sacramental marriages? My answer is that is God’s issue, not mine. I will do all I can to support marriages; and if they do break up, I will tell them where the nearest tribunal is and trust the Holy Spirit enough to allow that couple to resolve their status according to the laws of the Church.

When 60%= of Catholics are not attending Mass on a regular basis, and when repeatedly it is shown that a divorce, or a divorce and subsequent remarriage is at least in part the source of their not attending Mass, then I want to see reconcilliation and healing. I am not interested in trying to find fault, as most likely both parties were at fault in the original marriage (although obviously often not to the same degree). I want to see marriage strengthened; and we are not going to do that by being the rigorist you would have the Church be. Christ did not come to condemn but to reconcile all to the Father. Cathechesis needs to be strengthened, but not on the backs of those who were not properly catechized to begin with.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

. Why do you say Catholic marriages when you do not have any data for that. .

The figures that I have don’t show any correlation between the number of conversions and the number of annulments. For example, for the USA I see 146,212 conversions to Catholicism listed in 1960, whereas there were 79,892 received into full communion in 2002. But the number of annulments has increased sharply over the same period, by about 100 times or more (10,000 percent), whereas if my conversion figures are correct, the number of conversions has fallen. So I don’t see the correlation here.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

You are making assumptions because you have an agenda.

If you say so, perhaps I do have an agenda of promoting family life and the stability of the family unit. I see the posters here using a whole lot of verbiage to defend this enormous increase in annulments which has taken place in the Catholic Church, even though the Pope himself has spoken out agianst it. Basically what we see here is a ridicule of marriage vows for example:
“So what do they think of “For better or for worse…”? it is a quaint formulaic phrase that, like, you gotta say, dontcha know, like, everyone says that cuz that’s what they do in the movies. It has been rendered a cute phrase that everyone says, and obviously they don’t mean; i mean, look at Tom Cruise, and the Kennedys, and Madonna, and like, everyone!”
It is the attitude toward marriage that is being expressed here, that may very well lead to family breakups and the resulting hurt and damage suffered by children from broken families. To read how abandonment and broken families may impact chilldren well into their adult life, you might want to read the book:“The Love they lost, living with the legacy of our parents’ divorce,” by Stephanie Staal. Or read
“The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce” by Judith Wallerstein:
“But its in adulthood that children of
divorce suffer the most. The impact of divorce hits them most cruelly
as they go in search of love, sexual intimacy, and commitment. Their
lack of inner images of a man and a woman in a stable relationship and
their memories of their parents’ failure to sustain the marriage badly
hobbles their search, leading them to heartbreak and even
despair.”
Isn’t it a tragedy for the children involved, when you go from 9 annulments per year to more than 50,000 annulments per year? Shouldn’t this tragedy be stopped?

 

[Aesq]

stanley123:

Isn’t it a tragedy for the children involved, when you go from 9 annulments per year to more than 50,000 annulments per year? Shouldn’t this tragedy be stopped?

And how do you plan on stopping this claimed tragedy? By stopping nullities. How does that stop divorce? It does not, would not and will not. You could stop nullities entirely and divorce would still happen.

Not all divorce is a tragedy. Sometimes it is the only thing that will save the life of one of the parties. If you do not believe this you can come and talk to the children of the murder and assault victims that I deal with every day. You spout stats you can not back up, you claim correlations that are not valid yet you do not have to deal with the victims every day like I do. Try it for a little while. Why don’t you explain that divorce is always bad to the victims of violence out there. Why don’t you make them your agenda? Are you willing to step outside your ivory tower and see the real world. The pain, the violence, the tragedy that exists in some marriages. They should be your agenda. They are the “least of these.”

 

[jrabs]

“The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce” by Judith Wallerstein:
“But its in adulthood that children of
divorce suffer the most. The impact of divorce hits them most cruelly
as they go in search of love, sexual intimacy, and commitment. Their
lack of inner images of a man and a woman in a stable relationship and
their memories of their parents’ failure to sustain the marriage badly
hobbles their search, leading them to heartbreak and even
despair.”
Isn’t it a tragedy for the children involved, when you go from 9 annulments per year to more than 50,000 annulments per year? Shouldn’t this tragedy be stopped?

Annulments are not the problem here, Stanley. The book appears to be about the ramifications of divorce ( or I can only surmise as such from the title you have provided).

Divorce is the problem - your beef should be about divorce - the root causes, not annulments. One must be divorced first before they can seek an annulment. Divorce is causing the destruction of the family unit - not annulments as the annulment is a secondary process - and one of healing I might add.

 

[manualman]

Aesq:

I would be happy to try to answer. But what are you saying? Give an example.

The nullities I am familiar with, the defect being corrected is not an issue. The persons were not Catholic at the time of the marriage or divorce. They had no understanding of marriage being a sacrament at the time of the marriage or divorce. There simply was no correction of any defect.

You are going to have to give an example of what you are talking about.

Thanks for the interest. Real life example of which I am personally familiar with the facts. Couple married 30 years divorces. At wedding, the couple used the Pill and the man had some emotional closeness issues that could validly be claimed were an impediment to the sacrament.

After ONE year, the couple learned more about church teaching on contraception, repented of the pill and became open to kids (eventually having three).

Both worked hard on the closeness problems, attending a Marriage Encounter weekend. That weekend turned into an ongoing group that met twice a month for the next 12 years.

Mass attendence every week. They belonged to a parish bible study in addition to the Marriage Encounter group.

At about the 20 year point, the couple moved to a new city, lost the couples support group, began fighting more, abandoned NFP in favor of condoms, spent more time in separate activities/separate friends and eventually divorced shortly after the 30 year anniversary.

Annulment granted, citing defects present at the time of the wedding. Makes no sense to me.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

And how do you plan on stopping this claimed tragedy? By stopping nullities. How does that stop divorce?.

Yes. I would recommend to stop the annulment process as it exists today and bring it back to where it was in 1930, when there were only 9 annulments granted per year. By making the annulment easy to obtain, Catholics can just give up on a marriage when there is burnt toast or for some other soft psychological reason that comes to mind after ten or more years of marriage. For example, they can say that they lacked due discretion at the time of the ceremony and that this is indicated by the fact that the baby is now getting the attention in the marriage that the husband used to get. (See page 12 of the book of Father Wrenn). The current annulment process has promoted the idea that Catholics can divorce and remarry just like anyone else in the USA.
From 1984 to 1994, American tribunals granted 440,174 annulments and 433,138 were based on defective consent. The Rota has been deciding about 200 cases a year on appeal, and of those cases it has overturned at least 92 percent of those based on defective consent. Now if one applies the 92 percent rate of rejection by the Roman Rota to defective consent annulments granted from 1984 to 1994, one would find that 398,847 would have been reversed and that these annulments should never have been granted in the first place. Another reason why we should stop the annulment process as it exists today and bring it back in line to what it was in 1930.

 

[stanley123]

manualman:

At about the 20 year point, the couple moved to a new city, lost the couples support group, began fighting more, abandoned NFP in favor of condoms, spent more time in separate activities/separate friends and eventually divorced shortly after the 30 year anniversary.

Annulment granted, citing defects present at the time of the wedding. Makes no sense to me.

It makes sense if you consider the possibility that many Catholics today approve of remarriage after divorce and that the current annulment process has encouraged and promoted this attitude. It makes sense if you realise that many Catholics want the right to divorce and remarry like anyone else and still be able to be members in good standing in the Church.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

Yes. I would recommend to stop the annulment process as it exists today and bring it back to where it was in 1930, when there were only 9 annulments granted per year. By making the annulment easy to obtain, Catholics can just give up on a marriage when there is burnt toast or for some other soft psychological reason that comes to mind after ten or more years of marriage. For example, they can say that they lacked due discretion at the time of the ceremony and that this is indicated by the fact that the baby is now getting the attention in the marriage that the husband used to get. (See page 12 of the book of Father Wrenn). The current annulment process has promoted the idea that Catholics can divorce and remarry just like anyone else in the USA.
From 1984 to 1994, American tribunals granted 440,174 annulments and 433,138 were based on defective consent. The Rota has been deciding about 200 cases a year on appeal, and of those cases it has overturned at least 92 percent of those based on defective consent. Now if one applies the 92 percent rate of rejection by the Roman Rota to defective consent annulments granted from 1984 to 1994, one would find that 398,847 would have been reversed and that these annulments should never have been granted in the first place. Another reason why we should stop the annulment process as it exists today and bring it back in line to what it was in 1930.

I don’t see how that stops divorce. That just stops sacramental remarriages. That doesn’t even stop people from remarrying -just remarrying in the church.

We still would have an enormous mess on our hands.